DannytheWall

I could have sworn there was a Simpsons reference with Mr Teeny (Krusty the Clown's chip sidekick) in a funeral scene, but maybe that's just so likely that I can imagine it. But I knew I could count on this board to remember the Tiny Toons version. Someone beat me to it I think there was a Pinky & The Brain reference as well. And speaking of animation, don't forget Cats Don't Dance. This is really an overlooked gem that got caught up in a bit of a speculator bubble in the late 90s and not many people know of it. There's a lot of classic Hollywood there, and the butler has a Sunset Blvd relationship to the main villain, who's def a Baby Jane type ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdP3Itc6_Es

YES. Also, add in a healthy layer of meta in that the "movie-ness" of the dialogue is coming from people who work in the movies. They mention a bit of this in the podcast, but it's worth a highlight in my book as there's lines between text, subtext, and metatext are so intertwined. Also, disclosure: I've always liked Double Indemnity well enough, but think it's overrated and I don't want it crowding into any discussion of something that makes my Top 5. :)

Hmm. About a quarter into the movie, I'm realizing my memories of this film are way off. Then I have to take way too long to realize I somehow blended it in my mind together with 2010's True Grit. Which reminds me, I really like True Grit far better than this.

This one broke me. Whereas I've been able to experience nearly 90% of this podcast by enjoying a re-watch before listening, this one was a completely new and unfamiliar film. Unfortunately, it just failed on every level to capture any interest of mine. For the first time in a long, long time, I couldn't make it through in one sitting. I found myself on the phone, then preferring to wander for some chores, then trying to rewind, then resorting to watching in small chunks, then just skipping to the last 10 minutes. I really appreciate listening to the podcast and coming to the boards afterwards, as it allowed me to understand other views, but it's just going to be an academic understanding, nothing personal. And I'm going to be a week behind everything thanks to the slog of Searchers. I didn't think any film would be at the bottom of my personal rankings below Swing Time, but congratulations "Suck-ers," you made it.

Looking back over my personal ranking (I add each film after a rewatch but before i listen to the podcast) it's clear to myself why some films are at the top, and why some are at the bottom. That middle part gets really messy, and this film found its way into the middle. Interestingly, I couldn't find any place for it except next to Bonnie and Clyde. In The Heat gets the edge, however, from my personal reaction to the movie, and it was a very emotional viewing experience. That's all I want to say about that. Without that emotional resonance, however, I doubt I would have placed the film so high. While watching it, I wondered if it could have been the True Detective of its day. Well, the first season I mean. That also speaks to how cinematic our television series are these days. Having no Simpsons' reference? I took to TVtropes.org which usually has a section that lists any homages, etc. There weren't any, although they do name a whole trope They Call Me Mister Tibbs. They also had some interesting trivia that didn't come up in the podcast, although without any references cited I'm not sure how to vet the information. for example, the site claims Endicott was supposed to be a sympathetic character in the novel, but was changed for the sceenplay, and similarly in the novel Tibbs was a polite and non-confrontational character. Another tidbit was that Steiger didn't want to have to chew gum all the time, but grew to like the way it helped him act. Anyway, the TvTropes page is here https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/InTheHeatOfTheNight It also pointed out something I didn't notice at the time, the "Feet-first Introduction," where the audience doesn't see Tibbs fully until ten minutes into the film. I wonder if this is important thematically or just a dramatic choice by the director. And maybe it happened off screen, but I sure hope Tibbs called his mother.

Just because a film has ULTRAVIOLENCE in it, doesn't mean the film is "about" ULTRAVIOLENCE. (I like writing it in all caps every time. ULTRA!!) In this case it isn't, because ultraviolence doesn't *do* anything in the movie except being there for its own sake. It exists in the world at the beginning of the movie, is a feature of the world throughout, and still exists in him at the end. If everything is ULTRA then it's a fancy way of saying that nothing is, and if that's the comment that Kubrick is making it's way too meta and frankly kinda pointless to be expressed in that way. It might be a product of its times, it pushed boundaries as much as it could, and filmmakers and audiences today are capable of much more, making "Orange" unsatisfying by comparison. Take a look at the commentary that other movies "about" ULTRAVIOLENCE that are arguably more successful-- Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killers, Tarantino's Django Unchained, Robert Rodriquez' Sin City or even Game of Thrones...

Someone somewhere said that it was meant to be a comedy? If so, well, that failed. And not because it's not funny or that people didn't laugh. Rather than seeing it as a comedy even in the philosophical sense, I'm thinking it's more of a... music video? It's more music video because there doesn't seem much of a narrative, or at least no purpose behind the narrative that's presented. Rather, the intent is more on creating a "theme", both in the sense of an emotional through-line (making the audience deliberately FEEL something) and in the sense of a message or moral (deliberately feeling something ABOUT something.) All the talk about the shock to the audience, the indictment of society and free will, etc. is testament to that. How many times did Paul and Amy say something like "the film wants you to..." or "the film makes you..." Kind of like a music video -- one that doesn't necessarily have a beginning-middle-end multiple-pointed storyline, but does provide images and sound that present something more singular. Although maybe it's more like a museum piece-- we are meant to stare at it on the wall in its entirety as you mull over a "theme" that is displayed. Hopefully you can blink. But that's also why it (and other "art-y" films) are unsatisfying to many, especially in its story. Because we prefer to see a narrative that results in something larger. Philosophically speaking, it's why we tell stories in the larger categories of tragedy and comedy. The twin face masks, one crying one laughing. Every story starts with something wrong with the world, an unsettled status quo, but by the story leading us through death (tragedy) or through coupling/marriage/birth (comedy), it restores to a new if not better status quo. "Orange" begins with the unsettledness, to be sure, but it's difficult to see any movement through death (does Alex even die to his old self? guess not) nor coupling/marriage (not at all) so what's the resolution, where is the redemption? We are left with a world unchanged and displaying themes we already agree with, so why wouldn't someone feel upset that it became a waste of time. The inner nihilist in us all is tapping his foot, prompting the movie, "and ...?!" (The Inner Nihilist was a sixth character in Pixar's Inside Out but you'll have to see the director's cut.) All of that to say, by failing to fit into the purposeful intentions of either comedy or tragedy, it falls into neither, making it just a one-note whine.

Tried to give the movie a chance by rewatching as much as I could. As much as like (or at least appreciate) 2001, i find it and pretty much any film by Kubrick to just be so overrated. He always struck me as producing the kind of overwrought, hyperpretenious movie that you'd find from a first year film student desperate to create capital-A "ART!" And I came to this conclusion when i was a first year film student and have yet to experience any thing different.

Well, there's always TVTropes to the rescue: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/SophiesChoice But, yeah, that's not a long list when compared to the vast majority of films. So maybe it's doing something right. (/end understatement mode)

Yes, I'm certainly not trying to judge the movie for what it is NOT, as any art should be judged by what it IS. By making the film subjective to Stingo's experience, however, the result is that it makes him a more "important" figure-- as others have pointed out quite nicely in previous posts, the story is about how Sophie impacts the Narrator, how Stingo becomes the one to carry the "message" of surviving into the world beyond the movie/story, etc. We can dig for days into the richness of the story and characters for days by just what's presented to us. But one of the ways to challenge the story and themes is to butt them up against their imagined opposites. Looking at A by considering Not-A. I wondered how the story and themes might change if Sophie was our subjective point of view. I don't think we'd need to have a linear A to B to C story, similarly the mystery of the titular choice could remain hidden until she shares it with someone. Maybe another contemporary challenge could be to rework Stingo as a female character. I guess I'm lamenting that we don't get to see from Sophie's POV because the film presented her as such a more compelling character than any others. But by that same token, if she were presented in a different way, would it have ended up less compelling?

So, then, is it an advantage or disadvantage that Sophie, arguably the central character, is only experienced by way of a first person (and male) narrator? I was really looking forward to a woman-centric film only to grumble in the first few minutes when I realized I was getting "Nick" from Great Gatsby. The service to the story is that it becomes a mystery and allows for some twists of narrative, but the disadvantage is that it really is quite trope-y. Sophie is very un-manic and un-pixie, but she essentially serves as manic pixie dream girl for both Nathan and Stingo.

well, I don't know what I was expecting, but that wasn't it. It was definitely an interesting film watching experience. It was much more captial-A "artistic" than I thought. I couldn't help but think how much like The Great Gatsby it was in set up-- the narrator, first-person, finding himself a somewhat passive wheel among a central trio. Also, it felt very "European cinema" in some ways. my biggest criticism kept echoing in my head throughout the film -- and strangely was echoed by Paul as well. I shouted "I KNOW!" when Paul said how "play-like" the movie was. To me, that's both a praise and a criticism. It makes for a rich experience of art, but notably more for the writing and acting, but lacks a "scale" (yes, aside from the very important flashbacks). This is certainly a personal preference, so I'm not arguing it's a bad movie. It's just that if I'm ranking it against other AFI grand-scale pictures, it by definition will be lower on the list. Although I did put All About Eve in my personal top 10. Go figure.

I know we're not supposed to ask how characters go to the bathroom and stuff, but.. how did he go to the bathroom?! People can print and distribute newspapers, organize marches with neatly printed signs driven on the sides of busses, all between the time someone isn't going to the bathroom?

You know, if Mr Smith Goes to Washington took place in the Scooby Doo universe, the crooked real estate developers would be exposed in a decidedly MUCH more entertaining manner.

My first exposure to the Marx Brothers was thanks to animated cartoons. Most specifically Bugs Bunny (always acknowledged as an homage) and also the 90s series Animaniacs

By the way, Indiana Jones missed running into Charlie Allnut and The African Queen by two years. TAQ takes place in 1914, and The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, Season 1 ep 5, had Indy joining the Belgium army under false pretenses to fight in World War 1, and he was in the German East Africa campaign.

I was all ready to jump on this question and outline my answer, but it's hard to put it succinctly into words. I certainly love the movie (although not to the extent of their guest on the episode) and if I could ever make a podcast that talked about just one thing it would probably be Indiana Jones. If I have to talk purely cinematically, I'll echo Cameron's point about it being very timeless, which to your specific callout of Fast and Furious somewhat fails But more to the point, there's a richness to the all the elements that really raise the movie to a level beyond superficial or fun. The cinematography, the lighting, the acting, the set design, the editing, stunts, the score, all of it is really top of the line and synergized. To be fair, there are certainly faults in the writing/plotting, but in light of its legacy to pulp heroes and old filmreels it stands out as a culmination of the genre. Overall, it's a perfect blend of fantasy and realism (formalism and expressionism) that just defines what a movie-going experience is. Like I said, hard to put it succinctly

1. In my mind, Indy has always been close to Marion's age, since at the time they met he was a student of Abner Ravenwood. I can't put a number on his age at that time, but canonically Indy was always presented as doing things as a prodigy/younger than expected age. That doesn't necessarily excuse any "taking advantage" of course, and there was some acknowledgement by the characters that it was a Bad Idea. It fits the time period of the film and the tropes of the genre, but I admit it should make us call it out today. EDIT: I did have a pdf copy of a script attributed as a third draft, written by Lawrence Kasdan, 1979. So obviously not a shooting script. In it, it describes Marion as: "she is MARION RAVENWOOD, twenty-five years old, beautiful, if a bit hardlooking." Subtract from that Indy's quote when the Men from Washington ask him about Abner, her father, and he says "We haven’t spoken in ten years." And, yeah. Ew. No indication of Indy's age description. I'm sure there are ways to justify things character-wise, history-wise, or whatever, but still. Ew. 2. It's pretty clear that Marion chooses to wear the dress, so as to play into the trope in order to escape. Character-wise, she is using Belloq's ego against him, as he's expecting her to act like a helpless damsel when she's really not. (Something about the way men treat "objects" overall in the film?) So, yeah, the film doesn't quite subvert the trope entirely as Indy not only arrives to rescue her but re-ties her up to save the day somewhere else, but it does tweak and play with the idea enough to not be a textbook case.

Yeah! It reminds me of a supercut I once saw that was titled something like "Every Spielberg character looking into light." Pretty much a signature auteur style. To side rail a bit to answer by other question, I think the oversaturated colors of many 60s-ish movies fall a bit into uncanny valley territory. It's not real enough to be really real and that's unsettling. Although that might be why Raiders works so well but Crystal Skull (among its MANY faults) falls flat -- the practical effects of Raiders makes it way more visceral of an experience than a CGI environment.

Wait, you're right!! Clearly, what happens is the teen witch from Beastly shows up, cursing him into a frog. Of course, he can't stop dancing, even though he's searching for true love's kiss. It's titled... The Princess and Michigan J. Frog

Since we're talking about Hitch's oeuvre, I'll mention that I use a lot of Hitchcock in my Film classes. (I teach film for grade 11 and 12. Although I doubt I've ever used the word "oeuvre.") It's funny that the black and white films seem to go over so much better. Strangers on a Train will keep the students riveted from start to finish, but North by Northwest will have them shuffling and fidgeting in between the two big iconic scenes. The way Arbogast is killed and filmed falling down the stairs makes students laugh but they "forgive" it better than a similar and techinally more proficient effect in Vertigo. I wonder if it might have to do with the black and white allowing for a different experience than the hyper-saturated technicolor. There's a different way you have to engage your imagination when watching a B&W in my opinion. Would Psycho have been as compelling if it was in color?

I don't see a general apathy towards Psycho compared to The Sixth Sense. That implies that everyone might prefer the latter film or be somehow dismissive of the former. Instead, I think there was much more contention about The Sixth Sense whereas most people generally agree about the place and praise for Psycho. Also, it's a much more thoroughly examined film, with countless opinions already given and gone over countless times. Heck, Psycho's has had literal do-overs of the entire film, where The Sixth Sense is reduced to a catchphrase. On my personal Letterboxd ranking, I went ahead and put Psycho above Citizen Kane. I wondered if a film would ever do that, and the way I'm making the Letterboxd list is one that relies on gut feeling right after I watched the film but before I listen to the podcast. Does it belong in the top half? Yep. In the top fourth? Yep. Above All About Eve? I guess so. And Citizen Kane? Wow. Actually, yeah. Who knew? But then Raiders came along and I have to put it on the top. I'm sure I'll have much to say about that one when the time comes. Edited to add: https://letterboxd.com/dannythewall/list/unspooled-afis-100/in case you'd like to look at my fevered mind

Just finished watching this one and must resurrect this post to ABSOLUTLELY second this. Also, DO NOT watch this one right after The Darkest Minds.

A psychologist would have a field day with this movie. So many storytelling decisions point to some pretty deep subconscious fears, all 80s-flavoured. Fears of downsizing/job mobility in an 80s recession? Check. Fears of rampant militarization? Fears of redefining marriage and of non-traditional sexual awakenings? Check, check, check. All we needed was some anti-drug messages and some good old-fashioned gay panic and we'd have "80s Existential Fear Bingo!"

Listening to Brett Ineson the cgi specialist was a real treat. He shows how intensive the process can be and how truly groundbreaking some of this stuff was. I was a bit disappointed tho that not more was made of the actual *animation* of the character. Brett's credits include the motion edit department, which puts the capture to the model before animating, texturing, effects, etc. (as he explains in the podcast), so I realize my criticism has nothing to do with anything he says. I don't work in the field these days, but I'm hyper-sensitive to the issue, and I would love to advocate and raise awareness of the job of the animator. Too many people still think that motion capture is some kind of fancy effects makeup, but it's not simply a kind of drag and drop feature. The actor is the clearly the foundation for the performance, but it's more symbiotic than most people think (and that includes the actors who perform it!) I remember it being more of a brouhaha a few years ago: https://www.cartoonbrew.com/motion-capture/lord-of-the-rings-animation-supervisor-randall-william-cook-speaks-out-on-andy-serkis-99439.html